Pentax K-1 II Review: A worthy upgrade?

The Pentax K-1 Mark II is a supremely weather-sealed, tough-built full-frame camera with a 36MP stabilized sensor. Billed as more a refinement of its predecessor than a replacement, the K-1 II gains a new hand-held Pixel Shift mode and sees improvements made to its AF Tracking algorithm - it also has a new pre-processor. Unfortunately, our testing reveals this additional processor applies full-time noise reduction to Raw files resulting in inferior image quality to that of its predecessor at higher ISO values.

Key features:

36.2MP full-frame CMOS sensor with no anti-aliasing filter

5-axis sensor-shift image stabilization

100% pentaprism viewfinder with 0.70x magnification

33-point AF system (25 cross-type)

Updated AF Tracking algorithm

New hand-held Pixel Shift mode

Extensive weather-sealing

1/200 sec flash sync speed

14-bit Raw recording (DNG or PEF)

Built-in GPS with electro-magnetic compass and Astrotracer function

4.4 fps continuous shooting (6.5 fps in APS-C crop mode)

1080/30p video

Wi-Fi

The K-1 II faces stiff competition from other full frame models at this price point, many of which out-spec it across the board. But for landscape and adventure shooters, you'd be hard-pressed to find a full frame camera with as many useful and unique features, like built-in GPS, an Astrotracer mode for night sky photography, sensor shift technology, and LED lights on the body (to assist in the dark).

Over the course of several weeks, we've put the K-1 II through its paces in both the field and in our test lab. Read on to see how it performed and how it stacks up as a whole against the competition.

What's new and how it compares

Here's what's new in the K-1 II plus how it compares to existing models from other companies.

This part is really interesting:"Most importantly, the problem is not detrimental to star details and does not present the same problem as the Sony star-eater issue. "Rishi was talking about "star eater on steroids", without taking any astrophoto image with the K-1 II. Those people say there's no such issue. Even "the problem" is not something they detected, they're just taking DPR's word for it.

"Rishi was talking about "star eater on steroids", without taking any astrophoto image with the K-1 II. Those people say there's no such issue. Even "the problem" is not something they detected, they're just taking DPR's word for it"

This is a major letdown by DPREVIEW. If no testing was performed on astrophoto and still they claim that there would a 'star-eater' issue, that essentially shows DPREVIEW's credibility (or lack there of). I can't imagine anyone would make such statements without having adequate testing. Isn't that the basics of testing and results publication??

I see cross-hatching & a grid pattern throughout the entire image - remnants of noise reduction. I've reached out to Ian to see what he thinks about this.

'Star Eater' is a by-product of hot pixel suppression, & only affects single pixel stars. It's been greatly mitigated in newer bodies, it's nowhere near the magnitude we initially saw, for example, when Ian published his original article. That's why some photographers are reporting they can barely even see its effects in real world astrophotography.

I find the noise reduction artifacts far more distracting than some single pixel stars that may or may not have been lowered in brightness, especially given the improvements to 'Star Eater' in the latest a7-bodies, as you can see here.

If you look at 100-200%, you'll see the K-1 II both making up detail, and removing it, in chunks far greater than 1 pixel.

So we stand by our original comment, which was: "For now, astrophotographers in particular may want to avoid this camera since the baked-in Raw noise reduction may affect the rendition of starry skies at higher ISOs."

"Manual exposure, 40 sec, f/5.6, ISO 12800". Not 6400.I'm not in a hurry to see what you want us to see. This is a high ISO, long exposure image on which Adobe Lightroom applied noise reduction and sharpening and its own demosaicing algorithm. And isn't Lightroom's demosaicing somewhat prone to generating maze artifacts?You're too quick to put it on the RAW NR, and to declare the K-1 II as a worse option without any comparative testing. That's not the scientific approach. That's confirmation bias. That's "no image was changed". Or "star eater on steroids", the same thing.

"However, the [noise reduction] issue does create that bizarre non-random grid pattern that’s visible under magnification. Astrophotographers hoping to stack multiple exposures should approach the K-1 Mark II with consideration of this issue and understand that the K-1 Mark II is not as good of a choice versus its older and cheaper predecessor, the original K-1.

I agree with DPReview’s assessment and I wish that manufacturers would stop trying to apply noise reducing techniques to RAW files."

'Too quick to put on the Raw NR'? 'Without any comparative testing'? On the contrary: we've seen this cross-hatching in two Pentax bodies, in older firmware Samsung cameras, & in JPEGs from cameras with poor NR. It's evident even in our studio scene: the K-P and the K-1 II, the two models that employ noise reduction. But not on the K-1, or any other camera in recent memory.

So, no, not 'confirmation bias', but a conclusion drawn from experience.

I see that Ian is making further updates and retracted the updates (the updates that he made after chatting with Rishi). Let us wait for his final response/results.

One thing to note here is - When Ian made his updates after chatting with Rishi, the same day Rishi posted that information here. I do not see that ‘enthusiasm’ From Rishi here when Ian retracted his updates kept the previous original score.

To me, these types of actions shows a less than innocent nature. These types of actions are keeping me away from visiting DPREVIEW more (They may not care).

Do you think it is also good to put the same comments or references to the thread here (since you made the updates there)? The reason why I am asking because you have mentioned the issues above and it is better to put those updates here also.

Sure. While I can't find any updated statement from Ian just yet, the gist of it is this:

We're unsure of what caused the initial low frequency grid pattern in the 2-image stack. Ian thinks it was a processing artifact, but he's still trying to isolate what the problem is.

That grid is not visible in single Raw images; however, the horizontal and vertical streaks that made up that grid are still visible in single Raws. They're sometimes emphasized in image stacks of low #, but with many stacked images, are likely eventually dithered away. It's a little confusing - as the artifacts we believe are resulting from NR are not totally non-random, but don't appear to be entirely random either.

Further investigation is needed, and as Alex has suggested we'll also look at different Raw converters.

From Rawpedia (Rawtherapee online help):"When working with very noisy, high ISO images in conjunction with the Noise Reduction tool, it is recommended to use the LMMSE or IGV demosaicing methods. They will prevent false maze patterns from appearing,..."

They both do indeed a good job in removing the artefacts. The rendering of the latter in particular is quite satisfactory, with little to no NR artefacts and good details retention (tested at 12,800 ISO).

Because, according to Murphy's Law, the pictures with the best expression or situation are the ones, which are blurry unfortunately, if the camera tends to fail a lot.

Of course, with any camera, you get occasionally and randomly also a sharp action picture. There, the saying goes: even a blind chicken finds a corn sometimes. So when there's a sharp picture, it may have been the lucky one out of twenty less sharp pictures, if the AF is bad. This one lucky shot is then demonstrated in Pentax forums with pride ;)

But this random to rare success is not what professionals or prosumers are after. They need to rely on a rock-steady reliable AF in all situations, yielding sharpness in preferably 95% rather than 5% of all shots.

Furthermore, moving vehicles are a very easy target. Very predictable and steady movement, and with only very small and very slow changes in the focussing, due to being far away. This is where even cameras are good (have a good keeper rate), which are 10 years behind competition in their AF capabilities.

The challenge are more erratic movements for things nearer to the camera. E.g. normal people photography, even though they don't move fast in terms of miles per hour, they are much faster than jets in terms of changes to the focusing. And much more erratic in their movements.

This is probably why no (relevant) people photographers use Pentax. Or no (relevant) wedding photographers. This would be absurdly rare. For normal hobbyist photography, the market share may still be between 1% and 0.1%. For wedding photography, it is probably more like between 0.01% and 0.001%.

To my eyes Sony RAW looks slightly worse across the field, may be thanks to the (not hand picked) lens. Don't see the significant difference though up to ISO 6400, except for heavy moire visible on the strand on Pentax RAW. Pentax's JPEG is the worst, no doubt. All this "baked RAW noise reductin" hype is about nothing.

This is a really lively debate on DPR and results of the Testing. It's obvious to me that DPR made a mistake in the use of the one wrong file and having did an apples to oranges test with the 50mm v. the 77mm. I think those were honest mistakes or poor decisions and they corrected them.

I hope to get answers to 2 questions to help me decide about Mark I v. Mark II. When using the DPR comparison tool in the conclusion:1). why did the rating on Video mode drop by 2/3's from Mk1 to Mk2?2). why did the "Performance" drop so much from Mk1 to Mk2?

The score system is made so you cannot compare scores between reviews made at different points in time.Which is weird. Have a score system you can't use to compare most cameras, then offer a widget to compare cameras...I think DPR is working on a new system though.

BLanam "why did the "Performance" drop so much from Mk1 to Mk2?"It is because the competition (all brands) moved on, whereas Pentax fell back.

The K-1 II is burdend with a forced, secret RAW denoising cheat, which destroys details irrevocably on some scenes, so that it closes the door for the application of future (or current) superior PC denoising software relying on PC processing power.

But the K-1 isn't a good camera neither any longer, by todays advanced standards, so that the K-1 would get a lower score if re-tested today from scratch.

For example the autofocus: the K-1 I was already too much behind the competition. Because the K-1 II hardly improved, whereas the competition improved greatly, the K-1 II now is further behind the competition than the K-1 I was when it was released.

No one really complains about their IQ at Base ISO. All FF have fantastic IQ at iso 100. This is no different for K1 mark II its as good as the competition at base iso, some would say better some would not. However it does have a slight advantage at higher ISO which may be important to some people, its likely the best of the higher res cameras, however if you use pixel shift the images have even better IQ than they did in the Pentax K-1. Compare the 12800 iso pixel shifted images and the Noise advantage of the Mark 2 seems more apparent. It would be fantastic if the Mark 2 could of pumped out a few more FPS but at least in terms of IQ it is a serious beast.

No, the K-1 II uses an old sensor (the one of the Nikon D800), which fell behind competition by now. It shows its age.

Pixel shift is obsolete by now, because better results can be obtained with any camera when using Photoshop image stacking workflows, which then yield true higer resolution 36x4=144 megapixels, and less noise because of not being limited to 4 exposures only.

I guess the Pentax division doesn't get any budget from the Ricoh office printer bosses.

So that Pentax is forced to do any development in software only, including RAW denoising cheats.

Yes, the Sensor of the K-1 II is very old and shows its age (if there weren't the denoising cheating help). It falls behind other makers which update their sensors to newer technologies (Sony and Nikon: BSI; Sony: dual gain pixel amplifiers).

I don't see loss of detail everywhere, but I see it in enough images and parts of the studio test to concern me. What puzzles me is that I consistently see lower contrast in the Mark II images. I don't know why this is.

This has become nothing more than click bait. Comparing the four models, the K1 II holds its own at high ISOs, the differences wouldn't be apparent in any type of real world print comparison. The entire discussion has become nonsense.

The K-1 MII is a great camera, and amazing value for money. The Dynamic Pixel Shift can function as a very powerful image stabilization tool. More powerful than anything I've ever encountered (1/2 second handheld shows no motion blur, and that is from someone with very shaky hands). Unfortunately, the Pentax 24-70 f/2.8 is not the best lens ever, but the 70-200 * is a great lens. I will hold off until Pentax releases a * version of the 24-70.

You are not addressing my point, which is that dynamic "pixel shift" can work as a powerful image stabilizer. No amount of stacking is going to convert an image with heavy camera shake into a sharp one... Btw, you probably want to put the quotes around the "pixel shift" and not in "dynamic" ;)

It's amazing what you'd get by applying the same logic to a different brand. ;-)

I'm not happy with Ricoh Imaging 's execution speed; their lens roadmap is sound. If they'd release those lenses already, certain kind of people would have less fuel for their bashing.For example, the DA* 11-18mm, which is an ultra wide, and it's expected for this summer.

This article was originally published on May 7. It has almost 1400 comments and it is still popping up on DP Review's front page, right on top - not somewhere low where articles go to quietly disappear. This is great!

This is the Donald Trump effect. Also Donald Trump caused a huge volume of activity in social networks and other internet discussions. Unseen for any previous president.

But this doesn't necessarily mean, that this type of spotlighting is good for Donald Trump, nor does it imply, that he does great ;)

Here, we have the issue, that the K-1 II denoises and blurs RAWs by force even for lower ISO. So that details are lost and cannot be recovered. This is probably to cheat testing and to get better test results with an old sensor.

I doubt it until I see it :)The K-1 Mk I and II tests revealed, that Pentax is not capable of designing prime lenses wich are sharp enough for 36MP, outside the very image center.

Not even their 50mm macro lens. For other manufacturers, such type of lens is extremely sharp throughout the entire frame.

So let's assume for now, that also the DFA 50mm will be just a weak "I wanna be a Sigma ART" clone.

Hopfully it will be better, because Sigma doesn't issue its recent ART lenses for Pentax FF, so Sigma can't fill the gaps. There's only one, the 35mm ART of 2012, available for Pentax. Whereas Canon sees 14 ART lenses by now, rather than just one.

We all need 14 lenses, that's well known. That's just the perfect provocative wording, always bending a bit and reality and giving it a degrading spin. Must be a job a new job to "animate" forums. 230 comments, always trashing anything to comment about, Pentax, Nikon, everything.

Funny thing about @dpthoughts and his crusade against Pentax fanboys. He is unknowingly really giving Pentax K1 mark II a boost in exposure, in a way getting folks' attention to Pentax. He is drawing folks' attention to this new offering from Pentax.....any exposure, positive or negative, is always good.

I never could understand the "need" to have some massive collection of available lenses for a particular system. What are your "needs" vs. "wants"? I can get by with 3 or 4 zooms to cover ultra wide angle to massive telephoto. Those are my "needs". My "want" would be a few good primes at useful focal lengths, spaced far enough apart to have noticeable differences in field of view. In native Pentax K-mount I can easily have 31mm, 43mm, 50mm, 77mm, and 100mm. These lenses are plenty sharp enough for the 36 MP sensor in my K-1. Then, just for "fun" - not a "need" or a "want" - I have a world of M42 lenses from classic SMC Takumars to Soviet lenses to whatever else. My eyes are wide open on those lenses. Some are soft and provide poor image quality. Others, like the Tak and my Helios, are really, really sharp. Seriously, you can make pretty big prints from them and not worry.

So, I have a hard time with people complaining about a lack of lens choice. It's there. Really, it is!

@6VQ5: "need"? You said "need"?dpthoughts is not a Pentax user, so he doesn't "need" any Pentax lens. His "need" is exclusively to bash Pentax.

I am a Pentax user, and what I'm missing is a relatively compact, high quality ultra wide. Not bad enough to go and get a 15-30, forgetting the 'relatively compact' part, so it's more of a "want".None of the Sigma Art lenses are that.

Check out this data regarding the improved dynamic range for K-1ii vs D850. This may be a trade off for the slight resolution decrease. This changed my mind about the upgrade. I think I want this upgrade.

Yesterday I was looking a Sony A7 series mirrorless lineup next to Nikon DSLR ()D850, D500) cameras and lenses. So, at equal aperture, Sony lenses are even larger than DSLR lenses. I've realized that Nikon and Canon DSLR bodies are huge. Sony mirrorless A7 series body are smaller than the average human hand making it unconfortable to hold. The Pentax K1 body is built to match the average human hand size, making it one of the most comfortable camera to shoot with. The K1 II is an optimized version of K1, faster more responsive autofocus, and more usable photos at high iso. I find that what forum member "dpthoughts" is telling here is completely non-sense compared to reality of what the Pentax K1 system is.

Well, FE lenses are meant to support high megapixel from at least 50mp. That's why they are huge. Sigma Art lenses are much bigger than FE lenses as a DSLR lens. On the other hand, both Canon and Nikon have fewer lenses which support high megapixel.

You have more options than DSLR. Unlike DSLR, mirrorless like A7 can use much smaller lenses. In that case, mirrorless has more advantages. Even DSLR use any pancake lenses, they are still big. What if you use Leica lenses? You can get benefits from it.

Also, a lot of people think that DSLR is quite big and heavy. Even professional photographers agree about this especially when they shoot for several hours continuously. For that case, mirrorless cameras have more choices whether they wanna use all expansive lenses or compact lenses. Meanwhile, DSLR don't have those choices. In these days, people prefer smaller camera body. If you dont like that, then you can use a battery grip or third party grip accessory.

Btw, 3rd gen is bigger than 1st gen and you never know if Sony decides to make them bigger in 4th gen. And you can carry more bodies.

It's like everything, there is an optimum size. Pentax DSLR are smaller than other DSLR. Here is the kind of comments we get from mirrorless users:"Since using the XH1 I have hardly bothered with my beloved XT-2, for 3 reasons.1) Better hand grip and balance with most lenses I use.2) buttons! new back focus and customizing the rear Exp comp dial is a big plus for me.3) IBIS Shutter! Image stabilizing and super quiet shutter is remarkable. Means every lens has now Image stabilizing."

It looks like smaller is not necessarily better. And the Pentax K1 and K1 II have the same size as an X-H1...

Also there's this "battery grip" thing out recently. The more people learn about this invention, the more they'll understand its mitigating effects for handling very big lenses, regardless of the camera body size.

But the good thing about mirrorless will always be its hybridness. Just remove the battery grip, and get yourself some of the available small to tiny mirrorless mount full frame lenses, and in no time you have a system perfectly suitable for travel / hiking / street / candid people.

"So far, it is better to have a smaller body. That's why a lot of photographers moved to Sony. "

Flaw logic. When Adolf Hitler was elected by majority of the German people, it wasn't the proof that it was the better choice. History showed that this choice was completely wrong.

"Same size? Seriously? X-h1 is much thinner and lighter. DSLR will never have smaller and lighter body with high performance."

Instead of passing off the K1 comparison and jumping to 1Dx and D5, you must not guesstimate, you must put the K1 and X-H1 side by side, period. You must discipline your thinking process in order to stay objective and not get lost into backing up your feelings.

Of course the main point is that for those who are photographers as opposed to brand representatives, the more variety the better - the chances of finding something that suits us in terms of physical dimensions as well as ergonomics and features and price point increases with every manufacturer that takes a different approach.

The K-1's size approach is unlucky, and that it is probably one of the reasons for its market failure today.

I dig that 10 years ago, Pentaxians found the compactness of their APSC DSLRs likeable, and even more so the relative compactness of the APSC lenses, including slow and small "Limited" primes. they praised that. That stood for Pentax.

In a way I always could understand that. Pentax is for a niche within landscape hobbyists. Which often means vacation travel and hiking. For that, nobody wants to lug around a huge heavy burden of lenses and camera bodies.

The K-1, and moreso its lenses, were a betrayal of what Pentax stood for previously.

Today, Fuji X is the legitimate (and superior) successor of what Pentax APSC attempted to be many years ago.

The K-1 is just a dead end. The "me too" camera that the market doesn't need.

"When Adolf Hitler was elected by majority of the German people, it wasn't the proof that it was the better choice. History showed that this choice was completely wrong."

That Bullsh*t. AFAIK, Hitler never got the vote of the majority, he pushed himself to power with a dirty coup in the end. The minority that voted him, did so because they fell for the lies, the false promises, and for the fear of communism which went viral during the great depression. At the time of the last voting, nobody could anticipate what Hitler would do to Germany and the rest of Europe.

Today, it is a totally different situation.The tiny parties are often communists or ultra-right.

There, the swarm intelligence of people make them turn away from them, because it is clear that those tiny party are no good for them.

With Pentax it is similar? Pentax is a bit like these ultra extreme but tiny parties. They are there and probably never die out completely. But people stay away from them for a reason.

"It's the fanboy logic that becomes so absurdly weird, that I thougt I need speak up against it."

The problem is that aggressively hostile comments are part of the problem, not art of the solution. I find any triumphalist comments by extreme brand loyalists of whatever brand irritating, and sometimes I might correct assertions that are factually incorrect, but that's different to coming onto a comment thread of a camera you have no interest in and loading the comments threads with negativity, even ones that are no more than rationally supportive of the brand.

If you visit Pentax Forums, you'll find very few Pentax 'fanboys' there - there are probably more of other brands - but Pentax users are, on the whole a well informed bunch of people who happen to like the Pentax offering, despite the known shortcomings in some areas, and aren't trying to convince anybody else to buy Pentax or suggest that the cameras are better per se than any other brand. But when you relentlessly attack a product what you are actually doing is calling into question the judgement of all people who use that brand, regardless of their motivation, and people don't like that.

For what it's worth, I think that Nikon make great cameras, as do Canon and Sony (though I'm not a fan of mirrorless, and wouldn't buy one for that reason, but the tech is impressive). I've never used a digital Olympus or Fuji, but they have a loyal following of people I assume not to be fools. The truth is that competition drives innovation and gives photographers choice, and that seems to me to be a good thing. If that creates a few people who have a tribalistic brand loyalty rather than just want to have the gear that suits them to take the pictures they want, then it's a price worth paying in my books

Of course; all major camera makers are highly competent at what they're doing. We are fortunate to have plenty of different product lines to choose from; one size (brand, technology...) does not fit all.

IMHO a fanboy is unmasked by the frenzy with which he's attacking others' choices. Being happy with your choice is normal; being unhappy with others' isn't.

This has become a comedy skit, what a joke. Body too small for that lens, then buy a camera grip. Brilliant !!! But but I thought you purchased the Sony because of its compact size ? Why is the lens still huge and then spend more $$$$ for a battery grip ? Hilarious !!!

You don't get it. - some are keen on the big Sigma ARTs and the big professional Sony "GM" (G-Master) lenses. They would get a battery grip end everything is fine.

- some are keen on compactness and agility, e.g. for vacation / trips / landscape during hikes / street photo / candid social photo (e.g. for certain wedding photography styles). They get small lenses and don't need a battery grip.

- some are keen on both, depending on their requirement-of-the-day, and want a system, which can be converted from a small kit to a big kit, and back, depending on actual needs. They get a battery grip, but use it only for jobs where they plan to use big lenses.

I see a camera like the A7III as a "hybrid" which can combine full frame with the advantages of APSC, if you pick the right lenses. I.e. small to tiny ones, which are designed for mirrorless-only. Including from Tamron and new upcomers from China / Korea.

pentaust/ lol are you kidding me? Accept the reality. Pentax is the only minor company who is falling apart. How come Sony successfully selling tons of E-mount cameras? The selling percentage already telling you everything. In these days, people prefer smaller body and that's a trend. If you still believe that small bodies are inferior, then you need to explain why Canon and Nikon are moving to mirrorless industry.

@Sunshine7913:- Pentax is no company, but a brand of Ricoh Imaging. You don't know what you're fighting against (as for why...)- a ton of E-mount cameras makes for slightly over 1,000 cameras (packaging included). So you're basically saying that Sony is selling thousands of cameras... I'm not impressed.- E-mount cameras tend to become larger, contradicting your claim about trends.- Canon and Nikon have no plans to abandon the DSLRs, so you don't get a passing grade here either.

Oh, and read what I said above about fanboys... respect our choice, if you want to be respected.

@Sunshine, pentaust would also need to explain, why Fuji X is skyrocketing so successfully. Given, that the entire system is only a few years old! That's impressive.

Fuji X gets a lot of users who used full frame DSLR before, and are fed up of the weight and bulk. Not tech nerds, but true photographers, i.e. those which understand that Leica-rendering optics are more important than sensor size or megapixels.

M34 (Olympus and Panasonic) are also very successful, also they work along the trends and not against them. Which pays off for them. In Japan, Olympus is best-selling in the mirrorless section currently. That's impressive, given that Olympus had diffculties a couple of years ago. Panasonic understood the importance of the growing video trend.

All these companies are smart, understand the market, and work along trends.

Currently I can only think of one company, which is dumb, doesn't understand the market, and works against trends.

I recently went from sony to Pentax for my FF system. I waited for the a7r3 to take this decision and as soon as I could test it I knew they would not fix the ergonomics and user interface. I never liked shooting Sony and had problems with weather sealing on lenses and bodies.

When I got my em1.2 I realized it wasn't really the size of the body as much as the ergo I hated on the Sony I had. I often use the em1.2 with the 300mm f4 and the tc and the body is great to handle.

I can't care less what the media and the mass are pushing as a brand or a system. I rent or borrow and try and keep what's work for me.

pentaust said: "talks about Pentax and all the reasons why Pentax is not good the same way as the Nazis told about Jews and all the reasons why the Jews shouldn't be."

I will never understand the psychology behind some Pentax fanboyism. To me this is weird, spooky and absurd. As if Pentax becomes a honeypot for a certain type of personality. I experience this weirdness also in other forums sometimes, if someone contributes a non-fanboy-compliant fact or opinion. Such type of comparisons would be simply impossible in any other brand's discussions.

Don't know that I've ever commented here, before, but I have to say — y'all are very passionate about some fairly esoteric stuff.

I downloaded one of the the K-1 II RAW files @ ISO 3200 (I doubt I'd ever shoot beyond that, so it's kind of a natural cut-off), and found it completely acceptable.

Then, I checked the specs and read reviews for this camera and other FF cameras.

This camera is a bargain. (Maybe not the Pentax system, but this is one complete camera body — especially when considering the sensor resolution at this price point).

I might buy one of these and a few more lenses (already own a few legacy lenses, including a Vivitar Series 1 Lester Dine lens — sharpest I've ever shot). I also have shot with the 77mm, and it’s a really tight lens with great IQ.

I hope Pentax hangs in there — at this price point, this camera provides an affordable entry point to ultra-high res digital photography for students and those without money to burn (and the non-brand conscious).

I've money to burn...lol...I just contacted a camera dealer I usually buy from. He'll get back to me on Monday. This tells me they don't stock many Pentax's...I got most of the camera brands (or had) but never owned a Pentax. Do have Ricoh GR and that's a gem of a camera.

The largest problem with Pentax is lenses. Most of them were excellent back a decade but are no longer. The world moved on. They should take a look at Fuji (disclaimer Fuji user) who rolled out a lot of excellent lenses for a new system in a relativly short time (+ a second line of primes with slower but smaller f2 lenses) - and will do the same for GFX again.

And the largest problem with Pentax lenses is simply manufacturing capacity, it seems -and wanting to get it as good as possible. The 70-200 f/2.8 is a superb lens, but it was delayed in it's release - the forthcoming 50mm f/1.4 looks to be superb also, but was meant to e out last year - and the 85mm f/1.4 was expected last year, as isn't even being shown as a pre-production model yet. These are and will be great lenses, but the risk of losing the customers that will repay the investment before they are available has to be a worry for fans of Pentax optics (myself included.

Judging resolution alone (take it with a grain of salt, as I looked at MTF charts, not pictures), Tamron indeed has definitive edge wide open (although not as big at long end as at wider settings). After stopping down results are more or less on par, with some advantage for Pentax at F/5.6 and F/8.0, and for Tamron at F/4.

To sum up, I don't think such results support a claim that D-FA* 70-200 is 'not even a good lens', especially since it reaches at least 'good' rating at any settings (besides edges wide open at the long end, which are 'fair').

Unless, of course, one considers MTFs wide open the biggest priority, and does not value other features like top notch coatings, solid mechanics and all-weather sealing (and also, as opposed to third-party offerings, no compatibility issues with future bodies).

All Pentax expensive top-tier lenses (those with SDM "supersonic drive motors") had motor mass failures. The only lenses alive today are probably those which are only used rarely.

This doesn't help to build confidence in their lens making skills. Even if the newer lenses don't have supersonic motors (or do they?) I don't trust that Pentax is good at lens internals.

Maybe if the new full frame lenses will have survived a few years, that will help re-building some of the lost confidence.

Regarding the magazine test being only 45 out of 100, this could have been due to an optical sample variation lottery? the DPR test of the K-1 II suffered from that as well as we know. This is the other thing about Pentax optics to be disliked a little, the seemingly ramdom poor manufacturing quality, i.e. frequent and high sample variations even with top-tier lenses.

"This doesn't help to build confidence in their lens making skills. Even if the newer lenses don't have supersonic motors (or do they?) I don't trust that Pentax is good at lens internals."

If we judge their lens making skills by 10 year old designs, we might as well say that Sigma and Tamron don't inspire confidence either, looking at their screw drive and early HSM offerings. Some still selling today.

Before making the statement that all Pentax top tier lenses have SDM failures, please be aware of the following:

1) Pentax D-FA 70-200 F2.8 is NOT an SDM lens. It is a DC lens. None of those DC lenses had any of the issues those early batches of SDM lenses had (16-50mm and 50-135mm etc.)

2) Pentax found the issues of their SDM lenses and corrected it. None of the new batches have the SDM issues.

3) The upcoming D-FA 50mm is a USM lens and Pentax anounced that all the future lenses would be USM.

Pentax 70-200mm F2.8 lens matches or even exceeds (in some cases) other 70-200 F2.8 lenses. Having used three 70-200 F2.8 lenses from other manufacturers (Canon 70-200 F2.8 IS II, Nikon 70-200 F2.8 VR2 and Sony 70-200 F2.8 GM), I can confidently say that Pentax is equal (or better in certain aspects) to these three. One thing I found in Pentax is the uniform sharpness across the frame in most of the focal lengths right from wide-open. The only drawback that I can see in Pentax is the weight.

Well the German test magazine which gave only 45 out of 100 points summarized, it is sharp only at 70 mm only in its center. So we have to leave it open, if it is - objective testing -versus- fan's promotion, or- failing high expectations -versus- matching low expectations, or- bad manufacturing quality control standards, i.e. sample variation lottery which is worse than industry standards, even at top-tier lenses,

Or some mixture of the above. But I suspect there's a lot sample variation then.

dpthoughts - Sorry to ask you this bluntly - Have you ever used Pentax 70-200 D-FA 70-200 F2.8 lens or even held it in your hands? What about the 70-200 F2.8 lenses from other manufacturers (Sony, Canon and Nikon?). I have used all the three and still have the Sony 70-200mm F2.8 GM lens. Though it has tho sets of motors and seemingly over engineered capabilities, I would not rate it any way better than Pentax. I have used 4 copies of Sony 70-200 mm F2.8 GM and the first two were having all kinds of issues (decentered). No doubt they are good.

Pentax is is $1000 lesser than Sony, $200-$300 less than Canon. Nikon 70-200 F2.8 E might be a little bit better, but it is $1100 more than Pentax)

My point is don’t get caught up by one German Magazines review. I have great experience with Pentax 70-200 and a few others whom I know have the similar experience.

Nivedita, a small correction: there's no Pentax USM lens, and that won't happen ever - because USM is a Canon designation. USM doesn't mean ring-type, it can also be micromotor (e.g. in the Canon 50mm f/1.4).

The D FA* 50mm f/1.4 is thus a SDM lens; but this is a ring-type SDM (the first Pentax-designed one).The D FA 15-30 and 24-70 are SDM lenses, but that SDM is Tamron's USD.

The DC motor proved its reliability and it's clearly faster than the micromotor SDMs, but the boost of speed given by a ring-type SDM is welcome.

The PLM drive is as fast as anything else. You have to see it to believe...

“1) Pentax D-FA 70-200 F2.8 is NOT an SDM lens. It is a DC lens. None of those DC lenses had any of the issues those early batches of SDM lenses had (16-50mm and 50-135mm etc.)”

Dprhoughts spoke in the past tense when mentioning the top-tier lenses and as such he is not incorrect. Maybe you want him to be incorrect, but that doesn’t mean he is.

“2) Pentax found the issues of their SDM lenses and corrected it. None of the new batches have the SDM issues.”

This is a rumour and not an official statement. In fact Pentax has always denied the existence of the problem. And there are people that had their later-batch SDM drives fail.

“3) The upcoming D-FA 50mm is a USM lens and Pentax anounced that all the future lenses would be USM.”

USM is a Canon designation for technology similar to SDM. Also, where is the source that all future lenses will have this tech? Seems very unlikely given the introduction of PLM (or what Canon calls “nano USM”) in some of their cheaper lenses.

@ dpthoughts. quoted "Can't confirm that the Pentax 70-200 f/2.0 would be even a good lens"

Well, if you say so, I'm afraid that your language sounds like coming from a deject from the very bottom of society. Perhaps you should think twice before you write such things so that you'd at least sound like an educated person.

"This is a rumour and not an official statement. In fact Pentax has always denied the existence of the problem. And there are people that had their later-batch SDM drives fail."

I'm with @starbase here. There were no official statements regarding dying SDM motors, whether during Hoya or Ricoh era. People say that DA* lenses made after 2012 are far less likely to fail, but I've never seen Ricoh backing this claim up.

"Also, where is the source that all future lenses will have this tech?"Again, that's just a speculation. New DA* 11-18 will be a DC motor lens. I'd wait with such predicitons until the new ring-type SDM in D-FA* 50mm proves its worth.

And I'd love some new PLM lenses. Plastic-fantastic DA 50mm and 35mm being perfect candidates for it.

The point was more, that Pentax top-tier lenses (with SDM motors) are prone to fail early, where Pentax has always denied the existence of the problem and leaves users alone with their broken motors.

With e.g. Nikon I'm not aware of such a lens quality misery. Nikon lenses are rock solid, can be inherited to children and grand-children, and as a consequence they have very solid and stable and high used-market prices.

Whereas with newer digital-era Pentax lenses (esp. SDM), you just burn your money and won't see much of it again.

This is not only due to quality / longevity issues, of course. It doesn't help, that the used market dries out in general from people turning away form Pentax, but no-one entering it (as evident from Amazon.com sales ranks).

So the supply-demand ratio is out of balance, you get your stuff sold only slowly and with substantial losses.

Should the Ricoh office printer bosses close down their little camera business, then things may get even worse.

Micromotor USM/AF-S fails, too. The best proof that they found a solution is that things are much quieter these last years. Also, the other lenses (than the 16-50 and 50-135) have much lower failure rates.Even ring-type motors can fail, although that probably requires whacking them out of alignment.

Pentax abandoned SDM micromotors a decade ago. Next lenses will be either DC (which replaced the micromotors), ring-type SDM or PLM. Or whatever they'll invent next.

@dpthoughts You have to discern between SDM and SDM. SDM is like Nikon SWM: it is a container term that can describe a micro-motor (as in the DA* lenses, that are prone to failing) or a ring-type motor (as in the Tamron-rebadged fullframe lenses, that have a better track record).

And current Nikon lenses inhertited by grand-children... let's just wait and see if that will happen. The 17-55 is a tank of a lens. I have one and it might outlive me. But Nikon has cheaper lenses too, with micro-motors and gears similar to Pentax.

@Alex Sarbu "Pentax abandoned SDM micromotors a decade ago" Hardly. The DA* lenses are still in production with little in the way of replacements on the roadmap.

Yeah, my 16-50 died too. I ended up buying another one used, and eventually swapped out the optics as the original one turned out to be slightly sharper. I tested the other one, converted it to screw-drive and sold it on at a discount.

My 60-250 also started to develop issues. But by that time I already got a D7100 and some Nikon lenses. Eventually I sold it at a discount too.

I lost money on SDM failing. And the irony is that that 60-250 was actually not as good at tracking a moving subject as the consumer-grade 55-300 I intended it to replace. The optics were marvellous though. It's the best Pentax zoom I ever owned: sharp throughout the frame at f/4 across the zoom range, and I think it might even beat my Nikon 70-200 f/4 in that regard. Although it did have significant focus breathing.

But the fact that a lens that's like 3 or 4 times the price of the 55-300 offered worse continuous AF performance was all the more reason for me to look further.

"The Pentax DA* 16-50mm had a reported failure rate of 35%. The other 65% of lenses, which were still working, were probably used only rarely."

Those reports were made in 2012, and situation could've changed in the meantime (also, SDM failures were mostly reported when the lens was *not* used for a longer period of time).

That said, I won't argue with the fact that Pentax DA* 16-50 is simply a dog of a lens (not only because of sluggish SDM - optically it's not much better than the kit lens - at least the one that I borrowed for a while was), and its price tag is just plain ridiculous.

No need to beat the dead horse, unless you really want to keep pointing this out in any discussion about Pentax lenses, just for the sake of pointing this out. Whatever tickles your pickle.

However, if you assume that there are no 'dog' lenses made by other manufacturers (and still sold today for outrageous prices), then I think we may occupy different realities.

@BarneyL I do have to say that the build quality of even the Nikon 16-85/3.5-5.6 puts my Pentax 17-70/4 to shame. Metal cams, hardly any wobble, a solid feel and tight tolerances. But I never used the Pentax 16-85/3.5-5.6, so I don't know how that compares. And I have no doubt there are worse build Nikkors as well.

At some point of my use of the internet I learnt to distrust total-and-persistent hate comments and user reviews. More often than not, the people writing them are pursuing some sort of vendetta, often with limited user experience of the product, dismissing that their might be a learning curve before you get the best from it, quoting selectively from lab tests that of course confirm their conclusions, and the like.

And so again, while there's no shortage of old glass for Pentax, the lack of modern primes imposes at least some limits on the quality that testers -- and more importantly, users -- of the brand might achieve.

While users appreciate compatibility with old glass, Pentax needs to step up the rate of new glass introduction. Fact is, though, they really don't have the volume to amortize full development costs.

The most sensible route to new K-mount glass, especially primes, is for Pentax to rapidly cut deals with reputable aftermarket makers such as Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina for the adaptation of their better existing lenses. (And if marketed by Pentax rather than their originators, then Pentax needs to offer a warranty at least as long as is offered under the originator's name).

The only viable alternative to deals with other lens makers (or selling itself to one) is for Pentax to go mirrorless, either with a short native mount to which users can adapt other-mount lenses, or better yet, if the upcoming Nikon/Canon mirrorless has a short mount, license one of those.

Either way, Pentax can then focus its resources on the development of high-quality cameras with innovative features at good-value price points.

I say all this as someone whose first good camera was a Spotmatic, and who remembers the quality and variety of the Super-Takumars that were available.

"Either way, Pentax can then focus its resources on the development of high-quality cameras with innovative features at good-value price points."

While I understand the logic of what you say, and I realise that it is meant in a positive and helpful way, I think that might be a difficult one for what remains of Asahi Optical Co to swallow - they were always a lens maker who made cameras to mount their lenses on, not the other way round - and they still make better lenses than they do cameras - just not fast enough!

Perhaps they don't have to give up lensmaking entirely. If they would simply make deals with reputable secondary optical firms for a good basic stable of modern primes that are already being produced by those firms, most of the development costs and delays disappear. (In particular, the Sigma Art lenses might be a good match, because a) they already feature a service-center-changeable mount, b) they lack stabilization, which could be done by Pentax cameras, and c) with their larger size and maximum aperture, they don't directly compete with Pentax's older, smaller offerings). Then Pentax cameras instantly would have much more utility, and credibility. And Pentax could focus on development of some truly unique optics not produced by anyone (as well as possibly modernize their older, smaller-aperture "limiteds"). Such unique items would have the potential to truly enhance Pentax's capabilities and reputation, as well as be higher profit.

The alternate scenario also makes sense -- perhaps even more so. Imagine if Nikon comes out with a new short-flange mirrorless mount, and Pentax were to adopt it as partner or licensee. Think MFT cooperation. (I'd hope both companies would produce adapters to their older lenses that retain high functionality, but that's a separate matter). With no full-frame of its own, and considerable expertise in optics, perhaps Fuji might also be interested in joining, at least as a lens producer. As partners in lens development for a new system, they could really give Canon a run for their money, with less risk because of lower expenditures for any one company, as well as a wider potential customer base.

The present problem is that Pentax is swimming against the current but still slowly being dragged toward the waterfall. They need to head for one or the other riverbank. They still might not reach it in time, but what they are doing now cannot last.

Whenever Pentax had to find a new owner, I'm sure that they already have asked Nikon everytime first of all.

But I magine that Nikon declined every time, because say even if they had to pay only one symbolic Yen, then still they would need to maintain the running costs of Pentax operations, have the additional costs of merging two companies, but don't gain business volume, and don't get the type of customers which Nikon is interested in (i.e. the professionals or serious semi-pro hobbyists with a big wallet and very high demands). Because the latter have left Pentax and are with Nikon already since years.

Nikon would have been more interested in partnering with Fuji probably (there were rumors around a few months ago), because Fuji has similar high standards and reputation, has interesting customers (with big wallets as well), and a complementing (rather than overlapping) product programme.

Regarding Part 2 & 3: I find it speculative, if Ricoh does FF lens design on their own?

The two most important lenses for the important use case (= landscape), the 15-30 and the 24-70, have been taken directly out of Tamron's shelf and stripped down (optical stabilization removed).

I take that as a possible hint, that Ricoh just can't engineer such lenses on their own, which in turn leads me to the suspicion, that the other newer K-1 lenses may be actually designed by Tamron exclusively for Ricoh only.

Back in Pentax Corp days, Pentax lens making had a name: Jun Hirakawa. He now works for Tamron,

And I don't know about any face or name which stands for lens-making at Ricoh.

Being so much dependent on Tamron limits what Ricoh can do strategically about its lenses.

Why not ask Pentax for a copy of the D FA* 50mm F1.4 to reshoot the K-1 and the K-1 II (Instead of the 77mm ltd which is hardly meant for reproductive work). We'll be able to see what modern glass does for the K-1's.

DPR uses 85mm or the closest lens currently available for their comparison shots. That's why people complained when DPR moved their Sony shots from the Otus-level 55/1.8 to the just-excellent 85/1.8. The 85 just wasn't available previously.

Agree. FA 77mm F1.8 is not the most appropriate lens to test the Pentax K-1 II and to compare with K-1 MKI at least.. D-FA 50 Macro should be at least far better. But the best choice should be the Sigma Art 35/1.4 which can be found for all FF brands.

@BlueBomberTurboThe Sigma 35/1.4 Art is available in K-mount (for Pentax).

I agree that adapters are a "no-go". I only wish that the downsides of adapters would be mentioned when it comes to comparing lens availability because many systems didn't/don't have a complete lens line up but were/are exempted from respective criticism due to their ability to use adapters.

The best solution, AFAIC, would be to use a lens model that is available across many mounts (such as the Sigma 70/2.8 macro) and use selected copies (checked for defects) on all cameras. Otherwise it will always be an apples vs oranges comparison.

@Mortal Lion Why would they? That lens is not out yet. Besides, if you have to depend on a future lens to do a decent review of a camera, what does that say about the competitiveness of the company?

I don't think that's the case anyway. The lens used in this review is probably decentered and as such I do think they should test with another sample that is properly centered. I think this is the only thing they should feel obligated about to change. I'm indifferent to them reshooting with a 77 Limited or that 50/1.4. Because if that will be decentered as well, it would be no use. Besides, nobody knows how the 50/1.4 will perform, right?

In a way, this issue reflects what I've found out a few years ago: getting the best lens is not as important as getting a good sample of a lens.

Because it is already in production and they can publish the reshoot when it is out in a month or so. I am sure Ricoh could supply them with a good sample. Who cares about competitiveness? I care about a realistic representation of the IQ potential of the camera. For that you need the best lens available.

@Mortal Lion "Because it is already in production and they can publish the reshoot when it is out in a month or so. I am sure Ricoh could supply them with a good sample."- So you say they should wait with reviewing new cameras each time a new lens is just around the corner?

"Who cares about competitiveness?"- So you don't care about your gear being competitive for the price you pay for it? Ok. But to give you an example, I'm considering Capture One as a Lightroom replacement. I want the software to help me solve certain problems. I can pay for that with money (and with a learning curve). In that sense, there is no difference between software and a camera or a lens, or any piece of gear that solves one or more problems for me. It's economics.

"I care about a realistic representation of the IQ potential of the camera. For that you need the best lens available."- The lens you talk about is not available. It might be in a month, or in a few months more (remember the 70-200 delays?)

You were talking about the company not the gear. So don't you use a straw man on me. The lens will be available soon and might already be available to review sites. Photo's of it and by it have already appeared online. Pentax ambassadors are probably already using it.

"You were talking about the company not the gear. So don't you use a straw man on me."

Hold your horses. Maybe I took your words out of context. If so, I'm sorry. But I was referring to the gear that the company makes. And of course I'd like that gear to be competitive. If not for me personally, then for the sustainability of their business. It's no good to me if they go out of business and I end up with a camera no new lenses will be developed for.

"The lens will be available soon and might already be available to review sites. Photo's of it and by it have already appeared online. Pentax ambassadors are probably already using it."

It doesn't matter because there are a number of way to get a customer into doing something that he would do without influence. The average mirrorless buyer buys a mirrorless based on the motive that mirrorless camera are smaller. A year later the same buyer buys himself a big lens because he's got the camera already. If you close the loop, the logic is flawed, in the meantime, the mirrorless company made money, never mind. It could even be that a K1 user carry less weight than a Sony user. That's because the buying process is guided through a "foot in the door" manipulation approach. In business, the logic doesn't matter much , what matter the most is that the customer believe he made the right decision, even if he didn't. A lot of people will read internet forums and select a camera according to what's being said, after the purchase is made, it won't matter that the camera really is or is not.

That's the Pentax way: to use a camera as a bait, and once a user is locked in into this closed system, they learn the hard way, that there's only an overpriced lens museum available, and this with no mitigation from 3rd parties like Sigma, Tamron and Tokina (which have all written off Pentax K by now).

Mirrorless is different. E.g. with Sony you have a growing latitude of choice. There are big but state-of-art Sony G-Master or Sigma ART. Both are big and heavy.

Then there are the smaller normal lenses (non-G-Master). These are more compact and more convenient than DSLR lenses. Especially standard to wide angles.

For example the new Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8. I was surpised when I saw in videos, how small it is, despite its end-to-end f/2.8.

Or to be landscape hikers' dreams, there are really tiny ultra wide angles around for Sony full frame by now or soon, e.g. the Rokinon 12mm f/2, or Laowa 10-18mm f/4-5.6. Just impossible for DSLRs.

dpthoughts: There are many photographers, including me, which are completely comfortable with using one body and one lens only. In such case, the weight difference isn't that big and you can use any system, e.g. Pentax, even on landscape hikes. I switched from Nikon to Sony, the weight difference wasn't the main reason though. With the releasing of the GM lenses, Sony won me over and I purchased the 16-35 2.8 GM along with their FF body. That said, I can imagine myself using K-1 with 15-30 and getting the same results and I think I wouldn't be bothered by this bulkier combo in any way. In my opinion, K-1 is a perfect landscape camera, especially when paired with 15-30.

The foot in the door is the Sony way. The Sony A7 is very small and also the worst of all camera ergonomics. Yesterday I was looking a Sony mirrorless lineup next to Nikon DSLR. So, at equal aperture, Sony lenses are even larger than DSLR lenses. On the other hand, the Pentax K1 is a DSLR smaller than Nikon and Canon but the Pentax has better ergonomics than Sony mirrorless camera. Pentax is a small brand, they don't have the extensive portfolio of lenses that others have, but when Pentax do it, they do it right.

In other news, Ricoh have announced 4 freely available SDKs to allow developers access to remote APIs for Windows (+ Mac & Linux using .Net framework) using USB, Android and Cisco IOS for wireless control.Link = http://www.ricoh.com/release/2018/pdf/0516_1.pdfK-1 series included + 645Z, KP & K70 (limited to Wireless)This is a big move, opening up remote tethering for Opensource development.

That's pretty interesting. A shame that k3II is not supported, i would have liked to play a bit with it. A great move could be to open their firmware or add the possibility to develop customizations or extensions. There are some cool things that could be done with some simple changes.

There is one hope only. There is a class called CameraController::CameraDeviceSettings. This class is totally virtual. It does not say what device settings you can control. I guess it is device dependent. The setting seems to be named with a string. So, somehow we need to find the possible strings for e.g. K-1.

This functionality should allow one to programmatically make fine adjustments to the current focus. Stepping through a range of such adjustments and evaluating the sharpness of the respective images per image analysis should provide a way to make the determination of the correct AF micro-adjustment very convenient.

Fully automated lens calibrations may never be possible (depending on future extension to the API) but there is already the potential that they will become a lot more convenient and more precise than it currently is.

Robbo, the K-1 II does forced denoising also at lower ISO, which also means visible (and measurable) blurring. I wouldn't call that "very very good at stills shooting".

The gimmicks are half-baked, e.g. the handheld pixel shift is a failure. Every camera can do better using a photoshop stacking workflow.

Astro is also limited, the sensor movement path is much to short to allow for long supertele photos. It lacks general precision. For ultra wide angle shots (UWA), the sensor can't morph to compensate for the sky morphing when it moves across an UWA field of view.So it isn't a replacement for stacking workflows and hardware astro trackers.

The review demonstrated, that even Pentax standard primes (50 macro and 77) have difficulties resolving 36 MP outside the image center, so that sometimes, there's hardly a difference to good 24 MP even when pixelpeeping.

36 MP isn't relevant for anything to most anyway, beyond just pixelpeeping. Human eyes resolve only a fraction of that.

"So it isn't a replacement for stacking workflows and hardware astro trackers."No one claims it is a replacement. It's a convenience thing. The specialized hardware has its weight, price and complexity.

True they are different beasts. And if you need 36MP, the A7 III is out. But better be sure you need it.

Pixel shift and stacking? You can take super resolution with any camera by just stitching more images taken with a longer lens. Need to rotate the sensor for astro? There are other solutions for that too.

A Pentax K200D with a kit lens can take better images than a Nikon D810 with a Sigma 24-105, but it will take more time (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-GbuXU8YMQ).

So it's all down to which problem is most important to you to solve in a camera body, and which sacrifices you are willing to make for that. For me, autofocus is a core functionality because I can't buy an accessory that makes my camera focus better as I can for astro photos. But I think, if astro is your thing, you're willing to spend money on that anyway. And if it's not, then most people probably prefer to have better AF. Besides, if there's any scenery in your image, you don't want to rotate the sensor anyway.

And if you still want 36MP, you can get a Nikon D810 and have better AF for 500 euros more. Not that big a difference, especially if you intend to get lenses like the 15-30 and 24-70, both of which are cheaper as Tamrons, and give you the added benefit of a stabilised view for the viewfinder, light metering sensor and AF array. Or get a used D800 for less than 1000 euros.

The Pentax is a good camera with some unique qualities. But it's not better in every way, and it is worse in some ways.

Astro, p/shift and hand held stacking will mean more to some than 4k video and spanky AF and vice versa plus relevant and easy to use compared to alternatives.Pentax's new zooms are 36mp compatible as will the upcoming primes. Landscapers will use iso 100 and those who choose high iso may well like the baked in NR.So many are up in arms, who cares!!When I process wedding images in the evening or a dark church and I end up with noise reduced images and extra DR, I may well be pleased to have less to do in my workflow and find the end result to my liking .... ???Its a camera that lends itself to enthusiasts taking pleasing astro, landscape or products images pretty much OOC with little extra gear or cost.In some ways, the mobile phone of the DSLR world with far nicer results.Its not a perfect camera, nor a direct competitor to many others, just is what it is and many like it for that ...............The purists are horrified despite NR happening for years.

@starbase, good points!Night scenes shot with wide-angle (e.g. milky way) have a moving part (the sky) and a fixed part (the tree, rocks, valley, or whatever). this alone requires a multi-shot workflow anyway.

This what's so typical for the gimmicks: The look good initially to the beginner, but are too limited to be really useful.

The horizon correction is another example. It is so unprecise, that it corrects the sky with every shot "differently", i.e. slightly wrongly. You have to post-correct it in the RAW converter anyway. If you do a multi-shot (e.g. bracketing), and forgot to switch the horizon correction off, then the frames don't match any longer.

Probably I should notify Rishi about these weaknesses, so that he doesn't dump untested gimmicks as "pros" into his pro/con table uncritically.

@starbase..... quite true.You could get a D810 if you valued better AF.Many Pentax typical users dont actually care. You see, they are walkabout shooters, landscapers and occasional astro shooters.They often have older high quality lenses.They can get extremely hi res images without buying a MF camera ... can do astro without buying the extra gear.Can get even more detailed images handheld in one shot without stacking on a computer ....Id like better AF and dont need 36mp hence im moving but understanding the Pentax user or potential buyer here is my point

@robbo d I'm not opposed to noise reduction. I'm just baffled by Pentax choosing to address this in the K-1 II as it can be achieved in post just as well and with little extra effort. And leaving it up to postprocessing software allows you to benefit from future software developments more (think AI and deep learning). Plus, the old K-1 wasn't bad noise-wise anyway.

But anyway, people used to Pentax will probably prefer to stay with Pentax because they can switch to the new body more easily. E.g. they know how the files will respond in post, they know where every function is on the body, they have integrated the camera into their workflow. Switching systems will throw that around and it will take some time to learn a new camera.

@dpthoughts The horizon correction is based on the same sensor that provides level indication in the viewfinder. On my K-5 it actually was off, straight out of the factory. On the K-3, it worked fine. Maybe Ricoh improved quality control.

@robbo, No you wouldn't do weddings with a K-1, because you need a camera with an autofokus (not talking speed for sports / animals for now, but precision and reliability for low depth of field, also for slowly moving subjects).

Then, in a church, you would prefer a camera with a silent shutter option (i.e. a mirrorless).

Details, which are destroyed by the K-1's low-quality forced RAW denoising, will not be recoverable.

Wedding photographers (actually any photographers) want to make their own decision of noise vs. detail. Or, they may want to work with masks to do varying levels of denoising in various parts of an image.

Pentax forced low-quality RAW denoising/blurring is surely something not even fanboys have asked for. RAWs should be more than fully processed and mushy JPEG-look-alikes, with 14 bits per channel being the only added value left.

"No you wouldn't do weddings with a K-1, because you need a camera with an autofokus (not talking speed for sports / animals for now, but precision and reliability for low depth of field, also for slowly moving subjects)."

Not true. Unless you shoot weddings where the bride is coming at you on a bicycle, and use release-priority AF-C mode. Pentax' AF-S has been precise enough since the K-5II.

"Then, in a church, you would prefer a camera with a silent shutter option (i.e. a mirrorless)."

K-1 has an electronic shutter mode (with all its limitations, like banding and RS, but it's there).

I guess that's true, and Pentax seems to want to underscore backward compatibility with all K-mount lenses every chance they get. But actually, this is something I don't get, because Nikon's F-mount has existed longer, and has retained the aperture lever (at least on anything but the "dinky" cameras), whereas Pentax has ditched this a long time ago, "crippling" the K-mount.

But you are moving from Pentax to another brand yourself? I think most people would probably prefer to have better AF, and Pentax doesn't try to appeal to most people.

About handheld pixel shift... the review speaks of artifacts, but I can't really see that tbh. So I don't know. But anyway, 36MP is already huge in terms of resolution, for me anyway. I now have 24MP AA-filterless (D7100), and even cropping half of the image out gets me a more than usable result. I think, if I need to do more cropping, I should just get the shot better in the first place instead.

@BarneyL Well, I had a K-5 and 50mm f/1.4 when my sister got married. She and my brother-in-law came walking towards me, and I tried to get shots. It was no use. The AF was far too slow and everything was out of focus. Only when they were standing still did I get usable shots.

I got a K-3 later on but don't think that would have made any major difference.

You can make fun of the bike test, or we can talk about photography. Doing both at the same time is not so productive I think.

Further the overall image quality is not too good, it looks like those JPEGs out of a smartphone, you see heavy denoising processing (other than the one for RAW, but more like what smartphones do for their JPEGs). Details don't get blurred, but get "thicker", coarser.

The old tripod pixel shift also has sometimes slight dotted artefacts, even for items which are not moving. I guess this is due to a lack of shifting precision. I'm talking about the K-3 though, but am assuming that it is not reasonably possible to achieve such a shifting precision (to only a tiny fraction of a pixel), so you couldn't get away without occasional artefacts.

"Calling this mode 'Pixel Shift' is a bit of a stretch""is more like the multi-frame image stacking methods smartphones use""comes at the cost of having random artifacts""dotted artifacts in (seemingly) random portions of the image""the potential for artifacts limits its appeal"

and make sure you inspect the example pictures, esp. the trees (in the background for fine structures, but also those in the foreground for their moving leaves and corresponding artefacts).

@BarneyL I created this video a while ago when I had both Nikon and Pentax systems side-by-side: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZ_C_g4GLkw. The "personality" of the AF systems, for lack of a better word, is just very different. And frankly, Pentax is somewhat obnoxious in that regard. I think the delays in K-3's AF you see in the video are indicative of what I experienced during that wedding. Outdoors, in daylight, the Pentax combination was much better. But indoors, not so much.

Btw, I've heard it all. "You choose the wrong lens for fast AF on Pentax", "The Nikon was not perfectly focused when you showed the LV image", "This situation is too specific" etc etc etc. I don't care. What you see is in my opinion indicative of Pentax autofocus over the 8 years I used that system, at least when used indoors.

@starbase218"Well, I had a K-5 and 50mm f/1.4"I agree that original K-5 was pretty lousy in terms of AF. Both AF-C and AF-S. That's why I mentioned K-5II specifically. Which had AF-S improved significantly (AF-C only slightly though).

@BarneyL Ok, I assumed you were making fun of the bike test as that happened many times before. Like people saying on forums that Pentax AF is not good for bike tests but it is good for everything else.

We are talking, or at least I am talking, about real-world problems in photography that gear might be able to alleviate. However, I do have to admit there were other possibilities at that wedding too. Like shooting with a wider lens (I had my 16-50 with me as well), prefocused and getting a more dynamic shot that way. It actually would have been a better photo I think.

In retrospect, a flash and that 16-50 would have served me better than the 50/1.4 and the 16-50.

I know the K-5 II improved on AF. To me, though, going from the K-5 to the K-3 just added limited tracking capabilities and a denser AF matrix. Still, I do feel the K-5 II(s) is Pentax's best DSLR.

"But actually, this is something I don't get, because Nikon's F-mount has existed longer, and has retained the aperture lever (at least on anything but the "dinky" cameras), whereas Pentax has ditched this a long time ago, "crippling" the K-mount."

This is offtopic, but older Nikon lenses have their own compatibility issues. Pre-AI don't meter with modern DSLRs (except Nikon DF), and may damage them. Also, screw-driven Nikkors (some of them truly exceptional, like 105mm Defocus Control or 80-200/2.8 AF-D, still made today) don't autofocus with all their cameras, including non-dinky ones like recent D7500.

@BarneyL "This is offtopic, but older Nikon lenses have their own compatibility issues. Pre-AI don't meter with modern DSLRs (except Nikon DF), and may damage them."

True, but the situation is still better than in Pentax land.

"Also, screw-driven Nikkors (some of them truly exceptional, like 105mm Defocus Control or 80-200/2.8 AF-D, still made today) don't autofocus with all their cameras, including non-dinky ones like recent D7500."

That's just simply not true, which you would have known had you done your own due diligence on the matter. The D7500 does miss out on the aperture lever which might put some people off (I intentionally did not name the "dinky" cameras), but it has an AF motor just like the D500 or any of the fullframe models. And those fullframe models also all have the aperture lever (this is a bit more relevant to the K-1 II).

@starbase218I checked it again and yes, you are right about D7500 indeed. Thanks for pointing that out. It's funny, because I got that info from a Nikon shooter when I was considering Nikon DSLR. He told me explicitly that I should go for D7200 instead, as it has screw drive motor, and so more lens options...

Anyway, I apologize for spreading misinformation. I should triple-check whenever I'm about to mention something about a system I'm not in.

"robbo, No you wouldn't do weddings with a K-1, because you need a camera with an autofokus (not talking speed for sports / animals for now, but precision and reliability for low depth of field, also for slowly moving subjects).

Then, in a church, you would prefer a camera with a silent shutter option (i.e. a mirrorless)."

Using af-s on the modern lenses is generally adequate with k1 and even on older crop bodied Pentax. Some of the older lenses, SDM motor are stunning optics but s l o w

Any good review has to compare a camera to all other cameras available. If you want to start a site that reviews and compares only Pentax cameras go for it. I think the review gives enough information for dedicated Pentax owners, especially in the way they compare it to the K1.

FWIW ..... the value rating and low light high iso ratings are rubbish.

While it doesnt do video or AF particularly class equivalent it does weather sealing, astro and pixel shift.

Now there are those to whom video doesnt matter and likewise astro or pixel shift..... but in a camera of this $$$ and pumping out 36mp .... those ratings dont make sense.

Im a realist about Pentax but 79% doesnt stack up to me either.

The AF score also incorporates metering, so thats kind of ok if not on the high side.

For studio, wedding, landscape and astro shooters this thing is very relevant and value for money.

I mean how many people in relation to total amount of these types of cameras sold really need 4k or video or 3D super tracking or blindingly quick fps and massive buffers. Sure forum geeks will, but the total % of users NOT.

What makes me change brands is 24mp, eye focus and 3rd party lenses .... but thats just me and im also not the majority

If you do any video, even if you don't publish in 4K, it is still very useful to shoot 4K in order to have more latitude with crops. And >8 bit video would be great too, the same way we like to shoot RAW vs JPG - in order to have some headroom for adjustments. I love the 4K photo mode on my GX85 too. The GX85 is my main video camera. I wish my new Pentax K-1 II had better video. But of course the K-1 II completely kills the GX85 when it comes to stills.

And a K1-II + GX85 + lenses for both bodies still costs less than one Sony body with expensive Sony lenses.

What im suggesting is that the K1 is a stills camera and a very good one designed for stills work, not video.If you want 4k thrown in, go for it ........... buy a Sony(fantastic cameras).... but many don't care for video or 4k and therefore a landscape, outdoors shooter who lives for stills will love the K1 for what it is .......

I've not seen one, @madbrain - but if there was, I think that it should be made so that sensible balanced comments (such as yours) couldn't be ignored - impossible to implement, I know, but I can dream :)

Incidentally, what I was referring to - for those who didn't notice - was some pruning of the comments - it had got up to over 1250, then suddenly down to about 1214 - sort of interesting what survived that process and what didn't, but that's only anecdotal and not seriously investigated

Blah blah blah, people that buy Pentax will buy Pentax, people that don't buy Pentax won't buy Pentax. 1 review is not going to change their mind. Their mind was already made up.

In this day and age, you can't get a bad camera from one of the known Japanese brands. You want to complain about a camera. Take a look at the chinese cameras with brands no one has heard of outside of China.

OBJECTION! My colleague here is quite clearly stepping over the fact that said rankings include multiple presentations of the same product! Moreover that the majority of the cameras sold correspond to the entry-level!

Do you only buy what others buy a lot. We say of sheep that if one jumps down the cliff all the others follow. I know I know, that's idiotic behavior from the sheep, but that also happens to a lot of human beings.

But often, it is the other way round. Doing, what noone else is doing, is often "not good". Say, if I was a president, I wouldn't be proud of grabbing women by the pussy, only because this behaviour is so "unique" and no-one else does it. Apart from a few Weinsteins maybe.

Not everything is good or recommendable, only because hardly anyone else does it ;)

Often there is a very good and sensible reason, why some things are done rarely by only very, very few.

Sounds like they are going to retest it. That should move it up to Silver award, AF will reemerge as the point of discussion, it will move up from budget option to the top tier listings in ‘Best Landscape Cameras, a comment section of similar length will ensue. Hopefully the level of angst unleashed by the exposure here translates into actual sales numbers sufficient to meet corporate expectations.

I don’t think they’ll change the Score. The Cons column is not untruthful, - but those negative attributes don’t matter to most Pentax buyers.

I hope Richard Butler rewrites the review over a Byline. He’s a consummate professional, and knows how to use non-charged language to convey an opinion. If they reshoot the studio scene with better control and truthfully note distinctions at various ISO’s the conclusion should be as glowing as was the review of the KP.

@silversalts: you may be right about the score, and I'm glad that R.B. is instigating a re-test. But I'll point out that there are cons in the K1II list (heavy and bulky, for instance...)that don't appear in the D850 review---but the D850 is only 5 grams lighter but significantly bulkier...So, hopefully not only do we get a re-shoot of the test shots, and a re-evaluation there, but also a more even-handed pro-con list. BTW, the D850 is almost 2x the cost, and while it has some things the K1II doesn't, the K1II has several important things the D850 doesn't...I think all of these sorts of things need to be taken into account, to be fair.

Sony is better roohhhh. The way I see it is every camera maker suffers a lot from declining volumes. Sony fighting for profitability with aggressive multichannel marketing to take market share away from dominant players. And with all the spending Sony have to do, the bottom line is rather slim. When you have to spend twice as much as anyone else to get your camera sold, you may not even be profitable. At the end of the day, Pentax being bashed etc. but people would be surprised to know how many Pentax K1 sold world wide.

Nikon understood, how it works: Just make a really good camera, with state of art benchmarking performance rather than unnecessary gimmicks. This is what the market really wants, and what the market really rewards: The profit multiplies. Which in turn leads to new investments, I'm sure.

@dpthought as suspected, you again picked and chose data and wordings to paint Pentax in the worst possible light. Are you shorting Ricoh stock?

Ranked 670 because most people buy cheap DSLR and those with kits and accessories. Also there are uncountably many resellers of the same Canikon entry-level models while Pentax sells it's bodies on their own.

@dpthoughts. I am not interested in your kind of criticism. What I mean, is , many many K1 were sold and are now being used by many many photographers who are satisfied. Of course, other brands sold more based on access to distribution channels. Keep in mind that access to distribution channels has more to do with commercial strategy of a firm rather than how good is the product. Phase One don't sell many cameras but they are very good for what they are designed for. What is your problem with Pentax K1, does it hurt your feeling if it is a good camera.

That distribution channel thing is not an excuse. The K-1 is a hobbyist / consumer camera for doing landscapes.Hobbyist / consumer stuff is what Amazon is good for.

Of course, professional niche stuff or industrial imaging products have their own Channels, many products which Nikon, Sony or Fuji do will not be on Amazon. Say e.g. Sony's professional movie cameras, or Fuji's television studio stuff.

But if an ordinary entry-level Pentax DSLR for landscape hobbyists doesn't do well on Amazon, then this is not because it is "too good" for the Amazon sales channel :)

If you want to play the Amazon rank game, one can easily find A77II and A99II at rank 2000+. Alright. They must be abysmal bodies. Anyone who cares can see for themselves that the top 300+ ranks are full of Canikon kits at $500 or less.

OK, one could argue, that Pentax with its 2018 stuff is so many years behind its competition, that it is OK to compare it against a camera which is almost half a decade old.

But here there are issues regardless of the date. Sony knows, that its future is mirrorless, so this is where all the investments go today.

A body like the a7III just doesn't make sense as a DSLR version, it wouldn't be even half as good then. Because today, mirrorless got rid of its disavantages of former times, so that all advantages are left over in the equation.

Even Nikon and Canon comprehend, that they have to have mirrorless to do well long term.

The DSLR business of irrelevant DSLR players (Sony, Pentax, Sigma) is going to die soon.

Well not "soon", we actually witness this today, live, with the help of the Amazon sales ranking. Their DSLR businesses are dying currently, at the moment.

Because I don't know anything about the office printer and copier market, I wouldn't dare to invest anything into that.

Should they shut down or sell their Pentax business, then the stock prices may go up a little, because investors and owners always like to see, if their company gets rid of business segments with no sales, no profits, and no hope for the future.

Because I don't know anything about the low quality consumer electronics market, I wouldn't dare to invest anything into that.

Should they shut down or sell their Sony business, then the stock prices may go up a little, because investors and owners always like to see, if their company gets rid of business segments with no sales, no profits, and no hope for the future.

Cynically speaking, at least this guy -I/we like it or not- has a/one name...That said, he is too obvious, so he can be ignored, no..? Btw, this obviousness never causes any real problems comparing to other forms of obviousness which can hardly be noticed and etc. etc...

FOCUS ON WHAT? A spotlight needs to be focused at the DPReview's Studio Scene Image Comparison Tool, not only for the sake of argument concerning the Pentax K-1 Mark II, but for all the cameras and sensors coming in the future. What are we judging, the senor or the lens: Or some combination? The tool's view needs to have "ONE STANDARD FOR ALL REFERENCE LENS" for this idea to succeed with creditable results. This way the wrong impression will have little or no influence. The "RIGHT PICTURE" will be worth more than all these blog words.

I really like DPR’s gear reviews. More often than not, it’s a mix of smart writing and good journalism. But as an increasing number of posters have pointed out, this K1 review failed in a number different ways, most of which fall in the factual problems department. There are some clear errors here which are not just about opinion. The updating of the sample photos makes that clear.

DPR doesn’t has to write a new review but it would be appropriate to edit some of your headlines and claims to reflect these changes. That would be the editorially responsible thing to do.

I bought the K-1 after poring over DPR's review (and others) for months. Despite the many gripes of Pentaxians, I think it was very fair overall. And it certainly didn't discourage me from buying the K-1!

As someone who takes his confederates' serial complaints about Pentax reviewers with a grain of salt, I agree that there are enough issues here to merit some follow-up by DPR. I hope they do so.

Agreed. As a rugged landscape, field camera, nothing else comes close at the price. For video, shooting fast action sports, excellent AF, there are other options. I'm pleased with my K1, now two years old and working flawlessly, as is my newly purchased a7III.

@DPR this whole review of the K-1MKII is a total unprofessional fraud. The claim that "Baked-in noise reduction results in Raw files with progressively less detail than the original K-1 as the ISO increases" clearly doesn't exist in the test images you have provided irregardless of the lenses used.

The visual conclusions are the exact opposite compared against the K-1, D850 and A7III. As ISO increases the K-1MKII has at least 1.5 to 2 stop advantage over the other cameras. The k-1MKII ISO 12800 images are as good as the ISO 3200 for the other cameras.

Using just the center of the Studio Scene as you increase ISO it is abundantly clear the K-1MKII retains more detail with superior continuous tone. There is no blurring happening in the K-1MKII images. The edge sharpness remains the same.

Where the K-1MKII really excels is better color. Compare the color chart step by step. Right from ISO 200 the K-1MKII is better. By ISO 6400 it is no contest the K-1MKII maintains superior color tone.

No need for insults buddiiiiieeeee, I would ask you again as to how you are judging color.Is it in the raw file, if so how can you see that color in raw ? If it is in jpg how was that image made? IF you can answer these questions maybe you can tell as to why I should see better color from iso 200-3200

I maybe dumb but I still know a little about color more than enough to get me into trouble ;)

The user "Class A" had already apologised, that he was spreading the lie, that photos had allegedly been exchanged with versions made with the Tamron DFA 24-70. That lie was fake news originating from "fanboy hell" PF forum.

But as you can see in my crop, to me the K-1 II still looks as inferior with regards to detail removal, as it did ever before.

In the comparison, I included the older Nikon D810, that preserves all RAW details, having the same sensor.

Ian I have already explained what to do to see what I am saying but you refuse to do that. It is abundantly clear when you place the highlight anywhere on the color chart in the DPR Studio Scene comparison tool then increase the ISO each step the K-1MK holds better continuous color tone over the three other cameras. As you increase the ISO the K-1MKII progressively gets better the higher you go. But you refuse to do this simple test.

dpthoughts what you keep posting is not showing what you are saying. An easy way to tell you are wrong is to convert the images to B&W. What you don't understand is that is not a real person it is an image of person. As ISO increases the K-1MKII keeps it looking like what it is a 2D image of a person.

Again dpthoughts why not set up what I have suggested?

At least Class A has the integrity to apologize. DPR still hasn't printed a retraction to this review admitting they are wrong with their conclusion that the K-1MKII image quality is inferior than the K-1 which is clearly not true.

If the K-1 I doesn't do that, then it is legitimate to say, that K-1 II can have inferior image quality.

I just discovered, that it can be the other way round (the K-1 I blurs at ISO 100), but then someone told me about another K-1 flaw I didn't know about, its shutter shock blur, which could also influence results.

That makes it really difficult to judge, there are so many sources of flaws (including the performance standards of Pentax primes), each overlaying each other partly, that we probably have to live with the fact that an ultimate truth cannot be obtained with the information we have.

dpthoughts the only thing the bclaffs analyses does is confirm what Ricoh/Pentax says the Accelerator Unit is gong to do. The bclaffs analyses does no such thing as back DPR's conclusion or prove as DPR has falsely claimed that the Accelerator Unit is creating inferior image quality than its predecessor.

dpthoughts you have no clue what you are talking about which isn't adding any credibility to DPR.

Ricoh/Pentax most certainly said the Accelerator Unit was going to take a direct approach right from the sensor in creating better High ISO performance when it was introduced in the K-70 and KP. Here is a quote from DPR's Pentax KP review:

"It is at high ISOs where the KP really shines. Noise on the KP is incredibly low for an APS-C camera, besting both the K-3 II and D7200 at ISO 25,600. A jump up to ISO 51,200 widens the gap, showing the KP has a full stop better performance than its Nikon competition. We're a bit surprised by this performance, as there was little information given to us on how Pentax actually achieved this performance."

Ricoh said the Accelerator Unit was responsible for the greater high ISO performance that DPR saw in the KP yet for the K-1MKII they are claiming the Accelerator Unit is causing inferior image quality. Specifically high ISO.

@ Rico Your problem is that the testing done by DPR is not one based on color accuracy or how one camera varies from known color target.Do you think that when you are selecting raw in the DPR's scene display and loop that that data is raw ? and that the color differences you observe in that loop has anything to do with what color is found in the raw file?

Any differences you are see is primarily from how that raw data was converted and not what is found in the raw files.

Rico Your problem is that what you think you are look at is not a color test but how the images are converted

Could please point me to where you see the difference in the above values you think you are seeinghttps://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61141726these images are taken at iso 800 and should be very easy for you (if you think so) to tell me which is from which camera.In the color space that i have load the files there is so little difference in the colors that i need software to see any difference.

And again if you can see a difference in tonal range, color and hue could you please take a guess as to the one taken with the k1mr2 If you cannot pick the K1m2 image then you silence speaks volumes as to what you think you are seeing ;)

If you truly think you know what is accurate and what is not then could you point to the true value of lets say the first color patch in the top right and how it varied from the known values of that patch?

I think most of the guys here are seeing Nikon's and Sony's from DPR's image chart noises as beautiful as their eyes can see. This is the effect of brainwashing and Eye Retina hypnotics via fanaticism.

At the center, my eyes tells me Pentax K-1 MKII has the blackest and cleanest image at ISO 800.

This is at ISO 800 where the K-1 II forced denoising kicked in. You achieve the same or better with the other models, if you do some denoising in the RAW converter, with more control and denoising quality.

Sharp edges are not blurred from denoising cheating, because each denoising algorithm detects and circumvents hard edges. Denoising cheating destroys subtle details in those scene sections, which contain subtle details as part of the scene.

The blackness is due to the traits of Pentax prime lenses. In the very center of the image, they are very sharp and have good microcontrast. But only there, they don't perform evenly across the (full) frame, not even when stopped down. This is not up to the standards of modern primes, which do perform evenly, even when wide open, as this is what photographers want from their primes.

blah blah blah so many excuses and explanations. Cut the crap and show me the photos! I don't care how they bake the RAW or not but as long as the end result is awesome, clear and color rich then Pentax Ricoh has my money. Plain and simple.

dpthoughts the Accelerator Unit is always on at every ISO level. It doesn't get turned on after some ISO level. Let's test your new theory that we can not use the center as it is an unfair advantage to Pentax lens superior center sharpness. Here is an extreme border that shows the same exact results as ISO increases the K-1MKII maintains better continuous tone & value:

You can see looking in the four corners that the K-1MKII is not completely square like the other three cameras. The diagonal from lower left to upper right is slightly off which makes those corners soft.

@Rico "When you increase ISO it is clear which camera is holding better continuous tone and retaining better value"

According to what those processed jpg derived from raw files? Still waiting for you to tell me which of the iso shots was taken with the k1 and which was take with the k1mr2 https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61141726Your silence is telling

Rico There is no color contained in a raw file there is however are measurements that will allow for color to be extracted so any color tonal, accuracy or hue you think you are see has little to do with what you think you are see from the DPR studio scene, as I said DPR is not testing all of the things you are commenting onHowever how the image is being process has much more of an influence.

My eyes tell me the k1 II give the best high iso images in this comparison. Clearly the camera that maintain the best iq as iso goes up. Slightly better than my k1. I can't care less what dpreview conclude about the test. I've moved away from sony to get my K1 and can't be more happy. The question is now about the upgrade program is it's worth it or not.

Rishi Sanyal, can you please provide an explanation as to what is going on with the review and perhaps why it is being altered without mention? If the review is being predicated on a zoom lens while all others tested were primes, does this not alter your test comparison results and subsequent conclusion? When you say image quality is "worse" than the K-1, wouldn't it be premature and a flawed test to conclude this? The last response that you gave regarding this was a single question mark (2 hours ago). What does that mean exactly?

That the K-1 II does denoise and blur also lower ISO raws, is totally irrespective of the lens used, because that has been tracked down statistically / mathematically from flat patches by the user bclaff.

AFAIK, this is also irrespective of any Adobe settings, because bclaff works directly on downloaded RAWs with special tools, therefore being independent of Adobe ACR.

So I assume, that the attempt to deviate to lenses or even to Adobe settings is somewhat desperate, as the evidences have been collected already analytically, and published here, by bclaff.

Please point me to files shot with a zoom? As far I have seen everything was shot with the D FA 50mm 2.8 macro. I have compared a raw I downloaded may 8 with one I downloaded today. it was identical to the last piece of noise. (which you can easily check by stacking them in Photoshop). Claims need to be backed up, otherwise they are fake.

@dpthoughts, I don't think anyone here disputes the fact that Accelerator Unit applies NR to RAWs. It's also been that way in KP and K-70 - labtesters have pointed that out, but it didn't cause much of a discussion.

Here people are disputing the degree of NR's impact on the perceived details, and whether such 'loss of details' actually matters, or is so small that the lens variation has relatively much bigger impact on it; and also whether "RAWs should be left untouched" is more of a philosophical than scientific argument.

Also, there seems to be some sloppiness involved, as people noticed images changing during the past days. I think I'll just wait with forming my own opinion about the camera after more labtesters take a look at it.

Anyway, I'm not into this camera just like I wasn't into its predecessor - it does not offer much more than my K-3 II, besides nice tilting rear-screen and mythical full-frameness. Looking forward to the rumored new APS-C flagship, and some new glass.

OMG, thanks bill.But I think the debate is not if the processing engine (with accellerator) does have an impact on the raw data - of course it has, that was the sole purpose of including it - but if this NR can be done without destroying information in the images.The test revealed that for lower ISO no NR is done and for higher there is some. The images provided for evaluation unfortunately are not consistent enough to decide if the significant benefit in input referred Read Noise (that's amazing) does have impact on perceived sharpness.Some parts of the image seem (much) better, some at least equal. But lens and development settings have their impact here too.Whatever, some people are only here to stir the pot. At other forums they already got banned for spamming and trolling, and they are not interested in discussions. Don't feed them.

@ Class A I think it has always been the 24-70.Thinking back to the start I can remember that they used a different lens on the DR range test to what they used on the standard scene test. So I don't think it has been changed edited going back to my down loads I found the DR save to my computer on the 9 and it used the 24-70

@ Class no need for apologies but we don't need anymore witch hunting going on as it is ;)It would be interesting to find out what happened with the iso where we did see a change, but we have to remember that the evidence that was put forth was screen grabs using unknown methods and was the image fully DL for the K1mkd2 shot before the screen grab.

As far as the file size DPR's and how they display the image properties I have had images showing data that was not the camera that took the image.

More about gear in this article

One of the most keenly-awaited lenses for a while, the new Pentax D FA* 50mm F1.4 is finally here, and we've been using it for a few days. In this article, we're updating our initial impressions on the basis of our recent shooting with the K-1 II.

Latest in-depth reviews

The Nikon Z6 may not offer the incredible resolution of its sibling, the Z7, but its 24MP resolution is more than enough for most people, and the money saved can buy a lot of glass. Find out what's new and notable about the Z6 in our First Impressions Review.

Many cameras today include built-in image stabilization systems, but when it comes to video that's still no substitute for a proper camera stabilization rig. The Ronin-S aims to solve that problem for DSLR and mirrorless camera users, and we think DJI has delivered on that promise.

The SiOnyx Aurora is a compact camera designed to shoot stills and video in color under low light conditions, so we put it to the test under the northern lights and against a Nikon D5. It may not be a replacement for a DSLR, but it can complement one well for some uses.

At its core, the Scanza is an easy-to-use multi-format film scanner. It offers a quick and easy way to scan your film negatives and slides into JPEGs, but costs a lot more than similar products without a Kodak label.

Latest buying guides

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Sony mirrorlses cameras in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Canon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

For the past few weeks, our readers have been voting on their favorite photographic gear released in the past year in a wide range of categories. Now that the first round of voting is over, it's time to pick the best overall product of 2018.

Sony had the full-frame mirrorless market to itself for nearly five years, but it's no longer alone – the Nikon Z6 and Canon EOS R have both arrived priced to compete with the a7 III. We take a head to head to head look at these three cameras.

As if it needed one, the triple-camera smartphone might really be the final nail in the compact camera's coffin. DPR contributor Lars Rehm brought the LG V40 on a hiking trip recently and found it to be a huge leap forward in terms of creative freedom.

Renowned UK-based landscape photographer Nigel Danson has been using DSLRs for years. In this video, created exclusively for DPReview, Nigel discusses his experience using the Nikon Z7 and why he's excited about mirrorless cameras. (Spoiler... beautiful scenery ahead.)

Chinese optical manufacturer Kipon has added the Nikon Z and Canon R mounts to its range of adapters made to attach medium format lenses from Hasselblad, Mamiya, Pentax and others to full frame cameras.